The Nancy Pelosi thread (3 Viewers)

[bueno]

Or- maybe we got Trump because too many Bernie supporters refused to vote for Hillary? 

Not the reason, but believe what you wish. It is more like we got Trump because too many people hated Hillary in key battleground states and Trump took advantage of that.

.

 

[timschochet]

Those misogynist male Dems refusing to vote for a woman?

Sexism certainly had a lot to do with why Hillary lost, per the Vox article I posted yesterday. But I doubt it affected too many Bernie supporters. 

 

[timschochet]

Not the reason, but believe what you wish. It is more like we got Trump because too many people hated Hillary in key battleground states and Trump took advantage of that.

.

It was a little bit of a snarky response to ren hoek's absurd claim that its Nancy Pelosi's fault. I don't really believe the Bernie supporters made the key difference, but they sure didn't help. 

 

[jerry jones]

For the purposes of this discussion, I’m going to assume that the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives in November. If they fail to do so, it’s a whole different conversation. 

This is bound to be unpopular with a lot of people here, conservatives and liberals alike. Earlier this year, I wrote that, regrettably, the Democrats needed to move on from Pelosi: she was being villainized by the Right, and we needed new, younger faces to lead the party. Over the months I’ve come to reconsider that position, and last night, after I read about a speech Pelosi just gave in which I found myself agreeing with her 100%, I changed my mind completely and am now for her. Here’s what she said: 

1. When asked about what her priorities would be after the election, assuming the Democrats win the House, she said, first: lowering health care costs. Second, rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure. Third , resolving the immigration issue. And then she mentioned gun control. 

2. When asked how much she would cooperate with the White House, she said she hopes to a lot, on whatever issues they can agree on. She is absolutely opposed to a “scorched earth” policy. 

3. When asked about impeachment, she said that until and unless Robert Mueller delivers a clear indictment of the President, it was premature to even discuss it. And she has no interest in impeaching Brett Kavanaugh. 

It would almost be worth seeing the Democrats get the majority to see these through as major lies..........almost 

 

[The Commish]

I already reconciled it. She's for the idea of it, the way she was for the idea of it before. If in 2019 a bill is proposed to her, she won't pursue it. 

But she wasn't for it or she would have supported it before

Actions speak louder than word tim. You should know that by now

 

[timschochet]

But she wasn't for it or she would have supported it before

She did support it before. She didn't support bringing it to a vote. She still doesn't.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Sexism certainly had a lot to do with why Hillary lost, per the Vox article I posted yesterday. But I doubt it affected too many Bernie supporters. 

Trump voters are sexist for choosing him over Hillary.  But Bernie voters aren’t.  Is that your take?

 

[timschochet]

Trump voters are sexist for choosing him over Hillary.  But Bernie voters aren’t.  Is that your take?

Some of them. Please read the Vox article.  Slapdash linked it again in this thread. And then draw your own conclusions. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Some of them. Please read the Vox article.  Slapdash linked it again in this thread. And then draw your own conclusions. 

Don’t need to read an article. I’m asking you to clarify your take.  Guys that support trump were sexist but guys that support Bernie were not in terms of their voting preferences?

 

[timschochet]

Don’t need to read an article. I’m asking you to clarify your take.  Guys that support trump were sexist but guys that support Bernie were not in terms of their voting preferences?

If you refuse to read the facts then I can't help you. There is a new study that shows that many Trump supporters were in fact motivated by racism and sexism.  The article has all the details. Personally, I don't like learning this. I would much rather believe that economic anxiety is the main reason. But facts are facts.

Now, I don't believe that most Bernie supporters are either racist or sexist. That part is my own personal assumption; I have nothing to back it up. But I feel reasonably confident in making that assertion.

I also don't believe that most Bernie supporters who failed to vote for Hillary voted for Trump; I think they simply abstained from voting.  Those were the ones I was referring to, so for most of them your question doesn't even apply. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

If you refuse to read the facts then I can't help you. There is a new study that shows that many Trump supporters were in fact motivated by racism and sexism.  The article has all the details. Personally, I don't like learning this. I would much rather believe that economic anxiety is the main reason. But facts are facts.

Now, I don't believe that most Bernie supporters are either racist or sexist. That part is my own personal assumption; I have nothing to back it up. But I feel reasonably confident in making that assertion.

I also don't believe that most Bernie supporters who failed to vote for Hillary voted for Trump; I think they simply abstained from voting.  Those were the ones I was referring to, so for most of them your question doesn't even apply. 

Weird take that one group of people are sexist for not voting for her but another isn’t.  You sure the voters weren’t about the politics and the non voters just didn’t like either?

 

[timschochet]

Weird take that one group of people are sexist for not voting for her but another isn’t.  You sure the voters weren’t about the politics and the non voters just didn’t like either?

As I wrote, draw your own conclusions. 

 

[bueno]

She did support it before. She didn't support bringing it to a vote. She still doesn't.

sometimes, bringing it to a vote is good strategy. Makes for nice political ad sound bites.

 

[Mike Damone]

sometimes, bringing it to a vote is good strategy. Makes for nice political ad sound bites.

It advances the football 

 

[NCCommish]

If you refuse to read the facts then I can't help you. There is a new study that shows that many Trump supporters were in fact motivated by racism and sexism.  The article has all the details. Personally, I don't like learning this. I would much rather believe that economic anxiety is the main reason. But facts are facts.

Now, I don't believe that most Bernie supporters are either racist or sexist. That part is my own personal assumption; I have nothing to back it up. But I feel reasonably confident in making that assertion.

I also don't believe that most Bernie supporters who failed to vote for Hillary voted for Trump; I think they simply abstained from voting.  Those were the ones I was referring to, so for most of them your question doesn't even apply. 

More Bernie voters voted for Hillary than Hillary supporters voted for Obama draw your own conclusions

 

[timschochet]

More Bernie voters voted for Hillary than Hillary supporters voted for Obama draw your own conclusions

Do you have evidence of this? I’m kinda skeptical to be honest. 

 

[The Commish]

She did support it before. She didn't support bringing it to a vote. She still doesn't.

You're trying really hard to give her a pass for whatever reason....believe what you want.  Know that your definition of "support" isn't close to mine or the average person's  

As I said....actions speak louder than words.

 

[NCCommish]

Do you have evidence of this? I’m kinda skeptical to be honest. 

Phones aren't great for links but 15% of Hillary voters went McCain while 12% of Bernie voters went to Trump. That's pretty well documented and isn't new news at all.

 

[tonydead]

?

 

[IC FBGCav]

If you refuse to read the facts then I can't help you. There is a new study that shows that many Trump supporters were in fact motivated by racism and sexism.  The article has all the details. Personally, I don't like learning this. I would much rather believe that economic anxiety is the main reason. But facts are facts.

Now, I don't believe that most Bernie supporters are either racist or sexist. That part is my own personal assumption; I have nothing to back it up. But I feel reasonably confident in making that assertion.

I also don't believe that most Bernie supporters who failed to vote for Hillary voted for Trump; I think they simply abstained from voting.  Those were the ones I was referring to, so for most of them your question doesn't even apply. 

I thought most of them just didn't want HRC.  But what do I know.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When I think about whether Pelosi as Speaker of the House in 2019 working with Trump versus going "scorched earth" I keep recalling Ted Kennedy's biggest regret as a legislator being failing to work with Nixon on health care.    In many ways Nixon was proposing what could be seens as hybrid between "Medicare for All" and the "ACA".  His proposal basically made Medicare Part A and Part B with an added (at the time) drug (Part D) component and ceilings for out of pocket costs.  He would allow any private insurer to offer this plan (Part C).  For seniors this pretty much stayed as "Medicare".  For those employed the same plans would be offered via an employer mandate where employers would (eventually) pay 75% of the total and employees 25%.  For those not covered by either of those there would be the same plans sold with the government offering premium support as well cost sharing support.  (Sound familiar?)  This could have been in place in the mid '70s.  It would not have been single payer but it would not have been too different from the ACA - more like some of the Avik Roy versions which get rid of Medicaid expansion.   All it would have taken back then is for embracing the "art of the possible" instead of "holding out for the impossible".

I also think of the gay marriage debates in the FFA.  Pretty regularly someone would ask "if gay marriage is about civil rights why do gay marriage advocates reject things like domestic partnerships or civil unions".   The answer was they were not.   Going to any of the pro gay marriage advocate sites that had a legislative page would show the positions on hundreds of bills around the country where any bill that offered progress now without hindering future progress was supported.  No matter how small the incremental step was.  That didn't mean that passage of one small step forward was enough, was the end of the discussion.  Just that the carefully orchestrated gay marriage movement was willing to take what was possible at any given time without giving up the larger goal.  Thankfully there were good cases to allow much of this legislation be mere footnotes to history, but the willingness to pursue both small steps and seize opportunities for big moves concurrently shows that this is not either-or.

Most change comes at painstakingly slow pace.  Every now and then an opportunity comes along for a big step forward.  It isn't so much that the "needle moves" but those pursuing grand plans are ready and able to "thread the needle" when the chance is there.   We need to be ready and willing for both thus I think only pursuing incremental steps is the problem with Pelosi and company while having end goal "litmus test" is the problem on the other side.  We need to constantly express a grand vision, but be willing to take whatever is possible when it is possible along the way. 

 

[rustycolts]

When I think about whether Pelosi as Speaker of the House in 2019 working with Trump versus going "scorched earth" I keep recalling Ted Kennedy's biggest regret as a legislator being failing to work with Nixon on health care.    In many ways Nixon was proposing what could be seens as hybrid between "Medicare for All" and the "ACA".  His proposal basically made Medicare Part A and Part B with an added (at the time) drug (Part D) component and ceilings for out of pocket costs.  He would allow any private insurer to offer this plan (Part C).  For seniors this pretty much stayed as "Medicare".  For those employed the same plans would be offered via an employer mandate where employers would (eventually) pay 75% of the total and employees 25%.  For those not covered by either of those there would be the same plans sold with the government offering premium support as well cost sharing support.  (Sound familiar?)  This could have been in place in the mid '70s.  It would not have been single payer but it would not have been too different from the ACA - more like some of the Avik Roy versions which get rid of Medicaid expansion.   All it would have taken back then is for embracing the "art of the possible" instead of "holding out for the impossible".

I also think of the gay marriage debates in the FFA.  Pretty regularly someone would ask "if gay marriage is about civil rights why do gay marriage advocates reject things like domestic partnerships or civil unions".   The answer was they were not.   Going to any of the pro gay marriage advocate sites that had a legislative page would show the positions on hundreds of bills around the country where any bill that offered progress now without hindering future progress was supported.  No matter how small the incremental step was.  That didn't mean that passage of one small step forward was enough, was the end of the discussion.  Just that the carefully orchestrated gay marriage movement was willing to take what was possible at any given time without giving up the larger goal.  Thankfully there were good cases to allow much of this legislation be mere footnotes to history, but the willingness to pursue both small steps and seize opportunities for big moves concurrently shows that this is not either-or.

Most change comes at painstakingly slow pace.  Every now and then an opportunity comes along for a big step forward.  It isn't so much that the "needle moves" but those pursuing grand plans are ready and able to "thread the needle" when the chance is there.   We need to be ready and willing for both thus I think only pursuing incremental steps is the problem with Pelosi and company while having end goal "litmus test" is the problem on the other side.  We need to constantly express a grand vision, but be willing to take whatever is possible when it is possible along the way. 

Now this is why I like this forum.  I had never realized that there ever was a plan like this,backed by a Republican no less.  You can learn some very interesting things here.  I wonder why there has not been any discussion about this from our leaders today.  Perhaps they could use some ideas from this and try to fix the problems we are still having.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Now this is why I like this forum.  I had never realized that there ever was a plan like this,backed by a Republican no less.  You can learn some very interesting things here.  I wonder why there has not been any discussion about this from our leaders today.  Perhaps they could use some ideas from this and try to fix the problems we are still having.

Nixon also proposed a negative income tax (and Goldwater ran on it).   So once upon a time there was serious consideration of replacing the Welfare State with a variant of what is now usually called a B.I.G. or U.B.I.   By a Republican president.   

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Phones aren't great for links but 15% of Hillary voters went McCain while 12% of Bernie voters went to Trump. That's pretty well documented and isn't new news at all.

I would guess this says more about the differences between McCain and Trump than anything else.

 

[urbanhack]

I don't want her to be speaker, we need a change, but she is 100% spot on here:

Nancy Pelosi to a journalist: “May I say something you’re not going to like? I think the press loves him. All day on TV...and I don’t even watch TV, except sports. But he says somebody had a horse face...all day we hear about that. You just give him all day.”

 

[squistion]

Dave Weigel‏  @daveweigel 1d1 day ago

Hot take: The biggest problem for the Dump Pelosi faction is that they argued Pelosi would cost them the midterms, and instead the party won 38 seats. They're like Jor-El if Krypton hadn't exploded.

 

[AAABatteries]

I already reconciled it. She's for the idea of it, the way she was for the idea of it before. If in 2019 a bill is proposed to her, she won't pursue it. 

Thanks for explaining why some of us would like a different speaker.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't want her to be speaker, we need a change, but she is 100% spot on here:

Nancy Pelosi to a journalist: “May I say something you’re not going to like? I think the press loves him. All day on TV...and I don’t even watch TV, except sports. But he says somebody had a horse face...all day we hear about that. You just give him all day.”

She is.

 

[AAABatteries]

Let’s look at this a different way.  Imagine for a moment that I could put you in a time machine and send you back to before the 2016 primary - knowing what you know now would you still throw your support to Hillary and campaign for her to get the nomintion?  Several of us wanted Bernie and said we thought Hillary was a horrible candidate because she was so hated by the right.  Tim and  others said that was crazy and she’s the most qualified, etc.  Well, we are now saying Pelosi is hated and we think it should be someone else.  It’ll be fantastic if we get to 2020 and the known hatred for Pelosi helps get Trump re-elected.  

 

[Sheriff Bart]

I would like a change but if Pelosi is the most qualified to get Trump behind bars the fastest I'm all in. 

 

[dozer]

The Republicans tried to create a story saying Hillary liked sex with underaged girls, and went to Jeff Epstien's sex island six times. Any new speaker will be vilified from the get go and it will get worse and worse as the heat builds against Trump/R's.

Might as well have a speaker that is already a villian. It won't phase her. Once the Dems get things back under control we can get some new blood in there.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Let’s look at this a different way.  Imagine for a moment that I could put you in a time machine and send you back to before the 2016 primary - knowing what you know now would you still throw your support to Hillary and campaign for her to get the nomintion?  Several of us wanted Bernie and said we thought Hillary was a horrible candidate because she was so hated by the right.  Tim and  others said that was crazy and she’s the most qualified, etc.  Well, we are now saying Pelosi is hated and we think it should be someone else.  It’ll be fantastic if we get to 2020 and the known hatred for Pelosi helps get Trump re-elected.  

Among those Democrats that oppose Pelosi who wants the job?  Or just who would they want to have the thankless job?   To my knowledge there is not an equivalent to Sanders right now to rally behind.  

 

[Sinn Fein]

I am not a fan of Pelosi.  But, I think she can serve a lightening rod role here very well.

Trump and his ilk can demonize her to their heart's content, and then when the Dem candidate is on the national stage - its not Pelosi.  All the hate will have been misdirected.  There is virtually no chance the Dem candidate comes from the house, so almost nothing about Pelosi will stick to the 2020 candidate.

 

[NCCommish]

Democrats won in spite of, not because of, Pelosi. She is in the pockets of every monied interest we have and the voters are growing quickly tired of that crap. She will not allow impeachment she is already in record on that. She will cut deals that will have the electorate asking why bother next cycle. She is right now trying to cut a backroom deal that will give the GOP minority more power for a few votes. She needs to go.

 

[NCCommish]

Here's the deal Nancy wants to make. You would need a 3/5s majority to raise taxes on the bottom 80% of income earners. Sounds good right? Until you think about it. That means no Medicare for All, no college tuition reduction and then list goes on. She is willing to kneecap every progressive agenda item they just won the House on to hold the gavel.

Oh and Trump is backing her. Why? She is more unpopular than him. Her approval rating is below 30%. The GOP fundraises off her and they get out the vote off her. So she is a big part of their strategy for the next cycle. 

She has to go before she gives it all away.

 

[timschochet]

Sorry NC there’s nobody running against her.

As President Obama noted today, Nancy will go down as one of the best speakers in American history. She’s exactly what we need for the next two years. After that we’ll get somebody new in there. 

 

[zftcg]

Let’s look at this a different way.  Imagine for a moment that I could put you in a time machine and send you back to before the 2016 primary - knowing what you know now would you still throw your support to Hillary and campaign for her to get the nomintion?  Several of us wanted Bernie and said we thought Hillary was a horrible candidate because she was so hated by the right.  Tim and  others said that was crazy and she’s the most qualified, etc.  Well, we are now saying Pelosi is hated and we think it should be someone else.  It’ll be fantastic if we get to 2020 and the known hatred for Pelosi helps get Trump re-elected.  

You do realize the Democrats will run a presidential candidate in 2020, right?

Speaker of the House is not a symbolic role. The most important aspect of the job is what she does behind the scenes -- shepherding legislation, whipping votes, raising money.

 

[NCCommish]

Sorry NC there’s nobody running against her.

As President Obama noted today, Nancy will go down as one of the best speakers in American history. She’s exactly what we need for the next two years. After that we’ll get somebody new in there. 

If she is allowed to do what she wants she will lose the House in the next cycle. The only hope we have is that the new people in Congress keep her under pressure. We'll see.

And spare me Obama's opinion I couldn't possibly care less what he thinks. 

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Pelosi was a very effective legislator when she was Speaker. It would be a big mistake to dump her for "fresh blood".

Not it wouldn't.  She is despised by the right and cautiously approached by moderates who consider her loud, obnoxious, and counterproductive.  Sure the left wing nuts love her, but that's a given.  Doesn't make for better government, but I doubt you even know what that even is. 

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Let’s look at this a different way.  Imagine for a moment that I could put you in a time machine and send you back to before the 2016 primary - knowing what you know now would you still throw your support to Hillary and campaign for her to get the nomintion?  Several of us wanted Bernie and said we thought Hillary was a horrible candidate because she was so hated by the right.  Tim and  others said that was crazy and she’s the most qualified, etc.  Well, we are now saying Pelosi is hated and we think it should be someone else.  It’ll be fantastic if we get to 2020 and the known hatred for Pelosi helps get Trump re-elected.  

Can we put posters on ignore for just one thread? 

Great question

 

[NCCommish]

Not it wouldn't.  She is despised by the right and cautiously approached by moderates who consider her loud, obnoxious, and counterproductive.  Sure the left wing nuts love her, but that's a given.  Doesn't make for better government, but I doubt you even know what that even is. 

I have to disagree my friend. The left wing is no fan of Pelosi. In fact with an approval rating in the 20s really she doesn't have many fans anywhere. Well except at places like Wall Street, Big Pharma, defense contractors and the like.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I have to disagree my friend. The left wing is no fan of Pelosi. In fact with an approval rating in the 20s really she doesn't have many fans anywhere. Well except at places like Wall Street, Big Pharma, defense contractors and the like.

We are on the same page here, but your numbers are off. 

 

[NCCommish]

We are on the same page here, but your numbers are off. 

According to Monmouth less than a week ago something like 23% of self identified Democrats wanted Pelosi as Speaker. 39% didn't want her and the rest had no opinion. That's what I was going by. Hadn't seen the CBS poll.

 

[The Commish]

This is like Deja Vu all over again....

 

[zftcg]

Question for people who want to get rid of Pelosi: Who would you like to see as a replacement?

 

[timschochet]

I’m glad the left doesn’t want her. That works for her, and it makes it more difficult for the right to paint her as an extremist (which she clearly isn’t.) 

 

[TobiasFunke]

Let’s look at this a different way.  Imagine for a moment that I could put you in a time machine and send you back to before the 2016 primary - knowing what you know now would you still throw your support to Hillary and campaign for her to get the nomintion?  Several of us wanted Bernie and said we thought Hillary was a horrible candidate because she was so hated by the right.  Tim and  others said that was crazy and she’s the most qualified, etc.  Well, we are now saying Pelosi is hated and we think it should be someone else.  It’ll be fantastic if we get to 2020 and the known hatred for Pelosi helps get Trump re-elected.  

OK, now let's look at it a different way. Imagine if the Republicans let the preferences of Democrats and the likability of their candidates affect their decisions the way you and some Dems are proposing. McConnell?  Gone a long time ago- he has perhaps the lowest approval rating of any politician in America.  But he's been incredibly effective in advancing the GOP agenda. Trump? Obviously gone- his approval ratings were lower than Clinton- in favor of some milquetoast candidate like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio  Maybe they still get the support of blue collar white people in the Great Lakes that carried the GOP to the presidency, but given their attitudes towards trade and their general boringness, probably not.

Republicans don't let the opponent's ability to vilify their politicians affect their decisionmaking. They stick with the most effective person for the job. Dems need stop being so afraid of Fox News and sleazy campaign ads and do the same. Because it doesn't matter who they pick, Fox News is still gonna make them out to be Satan and the GOP is still gonna run sleazy campaign ads.

Also, Pelosi was already the minority leader before the midterms and the Dems did just fine.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Anyway, I'm just here for the Wire references.

 

[zftcg]

Also, Pelosi was already the minority leader before the midterms and the Dems did just fine.

That's the craziest part to me. Before the election you could argue that her unpopularity was important because it potentially prevented Dems from retaking the House. You would have been wrong, as it turns out, but it was a plausible argument.

But now? Her role as a political figure is far less important, and she will recede even further as presidential candidates start dominating the airwaves. But her role as a strategist -- which she has already demonstrated she is very good at -- is now front and center. It would make no sense to leave her in place when her weaknesses are paramount and then remove her just as her strengths are needed.

The answer to all of this is so obvious, only the Democrats could manage to screw it up: Keep Pelosi on for another two years, put a transition plan in place, and promote a couple younger members to leadership positions to start grooming them.

 

[TobiasFunke]

That's the craziest part to me. Before the election you could argue that her unpopularity was important because it potentially prevented Dems from retaking the House. You would have been wrong, as it turns out, but it was a plausible argument.

But now? Her role as a political figure is far less important, and she will recede even further as presidential candidates start dominating the airwaves. But her role as a strategist -- which she has already demonstrated she is very good at -- is now front and center. It would make no sense to leave her in place when her weaknesses are paramount and then remove her just as her strengths are needed.

The answer to all of this is so obvious, only the Democrats could manage to screw it up: Keep Pelosi on for another two years, put a transition plan in place, and promote a couple younger members to leadership positions to start grooming them.

Yup.

Every single House and Senate race that's won because the GOP candidate voted for the AHCA or otherwise took action to remove protections for preexisting conditions, both in 2018 and in the future (perhaps even the 2020 presidential race)? You can thank Pelosi for those wins.  Without Pelosi there's no Obamacare, without Obamacare there's no protections for preexisting conditions for them to attack.